1997 (5) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chine. During the hearing before the Collector, the assessee had placed besides the evidence on record, another affidavit from Shri Kameshwar Prasad Nautiyal, Design Engineer of the assessee. Among other things the affidavit clarified that whereas a cigarette making machine of mark V Range consisted of over 3000 components, a cigarette making machine M.K. 8 range had over 4000 components. The appellants had further clarified that this process of overhauling, reconditioning and fitment of 5-8-5 kit to the mark V machine, only about 500 to 600 parts are replaced and replacement of so many parts becomes necessary in view of the fact that all the machines in mark V range are over forty years old. In that view, the Collector has concluded that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 500 to 600 parts and the machine consisted of over 3000 components and the replacement of 500 to 600 parts does not amount to manufacture bringing into existence a new commodity. The learned Advocate filed a list of merely 28 authorities in support of his contention that reconditioning/renovation does not amount to manufacture. In the list of citations, we note 3 Supreme Court's Judgments as noted under:- 1. P.C. Cherigan v. Barfi Devi [1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 593) (S.C.)] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that retreading of old tyres (complete transformation is a must for manufacture) does not amount to manufacture of a new commodity. 2. Allenburry Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Rama Krishna Dalmia & Ors. [1973 (2) SCR 257] Re....